Suppr超能文献

美国传染病学会实践指南背后证据总体水平的分析。

Analysis of overall level of evidence behind Infectious Diseases Society of America practice guidelines.

作者信息

Lee Dong Heun, Vielemeyer Ole

机构信息

Division of Infectious Diseases and HIV Medicine, Department of Medicine, Drexel University College of Medicine, Philadelphia, PA 19102, USA.

出版信息

Arch Intern Med. 2011 Jan 10;171(1):18-22. doi: 10.1001/archinternmed.2010.482.

Abstract

BACKGROUND

Clinical practice guidelines are developed to assist in patient care. Physicians may assume that following such guidelines means practicing evidence-based medicine. However, the quality of supporting literature can vary greatly.

METHODS

We analyzed the strength of recommendation and overall quality of evidence behind 41 Infectious Diseases Society of America (IDSA) guidelines released between January 1994 and May 2010. Individual recommendations were classified based on their strength of recommendation (levels A through C) and quality of evidence (levels I through III). Guidelines not following this format were excluded from further analysis. Evolution of IDSA guidelines was assessed by comparing 5 recently updated guidelines with their earlier versions.

RESULTS

In the 41 analyzed guidelines, 4218 individual recommendations were found and tabulated. Fourteen percent of the recommendations were classified as level I, 31% as level II, and 55% as level III evidence. Among class A recommendations (good evidence for support), 23% were level I (≥1 randomized controlled trial) and 37% were based on expert opinion only (level III). Updated guidelines expanded the absolute number of individual recommendations substantially. However, few were due to a sizable increase in level I evidence; most additional recommendations had level II and III evidence.

CONCLUSIONS

More than half of the current recommendations of the IDSA are based on level III evidence only. Until more data from well-designed controlled clinical trials become available, physicians should remain cautious when using current guidelines as the sole source guiding patient care decisions.

摘要

背景

制定临床实践指南旨在辅助患者护理。医生可能认为遵循此类指南即意味着实施循证医学。然而,支持文献的质量可能差异很大。

方法

我们分析了1994年1月至2010年5月期间美国传染病学会(IDSA)发布的41项指南背后的推荐强度和证据总体质量。根据推荐强度(A至C级)和证据质量(I至III级)对各项推荐进行分类。不符合此格式的指南被排除在进一步分析之外。通过将5项近期更新的指南与其早期版本进行比较,评估IDSA指南的演变情况。

结果

在分析的41项指南中,共找到并列出4218项个体推荐。14%的推荐被归类为I级证据,31%为II级证据,55%为III级证据。在A级推荐(有充分支持证据)中,23%为I级证据(≥1项随机对照试验),37%仅基于专家意见(III级证据)。更新后的指南大幅增加了个体推荐的绝对数量。然而,很少是由于I级证据有显著增加;大多数新增推荐具有II级和III级证据。

结论

IDSA目前的推荐中超过一半仅基于III级证据。在获得更多来自设计良好的对照临床试验的数据之前,医生在将当前指南作为指导患者护理决策的唯一依据时应保持谨慎。

文献检索

告别复杂PubMed语法,用中文像聊天一样搜索,搜遍4000万医学文献。AI智能推荐,让科研检索更轻松。

立即免费搜索

文件翻译

保留排版,准确专业,支持PDF/Word/PPT等文件格式,支持 12+语言互译。

免费翻译文档

深度研究

AI帮你快速写综述,25分钟生成高质量综述,智能提取关键信息,辅助科研写作。

立即免费体验